ILNews

Opinions Oct. 30, 2013

October 30, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Heather N. Kesling v. Hubler Nissan, Inc.
49S02-1302-CT-89
Civil tort. Holds Kesling’s fraud claim survives summary judgment but her deception claims do not. Advertising a car as “sporty car at a great value price” is not a warranty about the car’s performance or safety characteristics. But stating that a car “would just need a tune-up,” in the face of actual or constructive knowledge that it had far more serious problems, does represent a fact and therefore may be the basis of a fraud claim when a seller gives it as a knowingly incomplete answer to a buyer’s specific question.

Wednesday’s opinions

Indiana Court of Appeals
Eric Danner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1304-PC-146
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Delmar P. Kuchaes v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (NFP)
53A04-1206-MF-304
Mortgage foreclosure. Grants rehearing after originally dismissing appeal and finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kuchaes’ motion to continue; in certain evidentiary rulings; in denying Kuchaes’ motion to amend the pleadings; in denying Kuchaes’ motion to reopen; and in the award of attorneys fees.

Christopher Peelman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
39A01-1301-CR-27
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class A felonies dealing in methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine.

Jose A. Bonilla v. State of Indiana (NFP)
19A01-1303-CR-146
Criminal. Affirms Class C felony child molestation conviction.

Kendrick Atkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1303-CR-135
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony attempted robbery.

Marcus Anthony Johnson Revocable Trust and The Marion County Board of Zoning Appeals Division No. 1 v. Westchester Estates Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. (NFP)
49A04-1302-PL-59
Civil plenary. Affirms order granting summary judgment in favor of Westchester Estate Homeowners Association and other appellees and the denial of summary judgment in favor of the trust and board of zoning appeals regarding a zoning variance. 

Lawrence Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1301-CR-80
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in community corrections and commitment to the Indiana Department of Correction to serve the remainder of Harris’ sentence.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT